Bonkers Blog October 2013

I have been sitting on Nicholas Dowling’s account of
his visit to Bexley
council when he previewed the soon to be published accounts for too long. Nicholas first
became interested in Bexley council accounts when councillor Peter Craske
indulged in fiddling the numbers to show that a residents’ parking permit cost
£250 to issue which he then used to justify his tripling of the charges. As Craske put
it himself, the reason was “to avoid making further spending reductions in key services
elsewhere”. An illegal act as proved by
the Barnet case in the High Court.

For some time I have had serious concerns around the so called £35 million
savings trumpeted by our Conservative councillors. (See
blog for 1st March 2013.)

Following my trip to the Civic Offices I no longer have any doubt at all about
the questionable efficacy around the fig leaf of so called savings. During
my time there I was able to to unearth several Strategy 2014 fabrications.

One must be careful not to investigate anything too large as there will
otherwise be unmanageable wriggle room for unscrupulous interpretation and
misrepresentation; at which our beloved Bexley council is so adept.

When I submitted my requirements for the 2012/13 accounts I believe I caught Bexley
council out. I asked for the advertising income received in that year, a question
which encompassed the following three Strategy 2014 business cases:

2014/006.06 Advertising on the council’s website (supposedly generating
£6,000 of savings in 2012/3);
2014/006.07 Advertising in council car parks (purportedly generating £3,000
of savings in 2012/13);
2014/006.08 Lamp post banner advertising in selected areas (notionally generating a
further £3,000 of savings in 2012/13).

I was more than surprised when the figures supplied by the finance officers only
showed income for the first of these business cases – and even here at a grand total
of only £2,376.39. It fell a staggering £3,500 or 58% short of the stated savings.

As presented, the other two cases had generated zero income and
therefore could not have contributed any savings at all regardless of the
specious claims in the Strategy 2014 update. I think we can safely classify these
cases as performing in the ‘piss-poor’ category but Bexley council claims they
are all ‘green rated’; i.e. on target and performing exactly as planned.

Don’t take my word for it, how about this comment from Dick Passmore the Head of
Finance Environment and Corporate Services when I suggested the aforementioned Strategy
2014 business cases would be more accurate if red ringed and highlighted for councillors
and the public at large:

“You asked about the income from two business cases included in Strategy 2014
which were 2014/6.07 (Advertising in Car Parks) and 2014/6.08 (Lamp post banner
advertising) with a target income of £6,000 and £5,000 respectively in 2012/13…
The sources of advertising income were both investigated and it was found that
they would not generate the required net income at this stage.”

It doesn’t look as if he cares, the misinformation is lightly dismissed!

Tricky Dickie’s words sound a klaxon warning that one should take everything in
Strategy 2014 with a huge pinch of salt. Also bear in mind that in the latest
Strategy 2014 update document Teresa O’Neill trotted out the now demonstrably
false claim that she was ‘delivering our planned savings’. Why is she so
deluded? Perhaps she should permit more genuine scrutiny of her council
officers as they clearly knew that some of the business cases were not being
followed at all. Then she wouldn’t look like such a bare faced liar.